If religion were to be abolished completely (Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.), what do you believe would be the outcome because of it? - Think Atheist2016-12-09T18:04:55Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/if-religion-were-to-be-abolished-completely-christian-muslim?commentId=1982180%3AComment%3A1326467&xg_source=activity&feed=yes&xn_auth=no@Tom, when I first blundered…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-02:1982180:Comment:13463752013-07-02T23:33:48.095ZDr. Bobhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/ProfessorRobert
<p>@Tom, when I first blundered here after the election of Pope Francis, I was clear that I am just a guest, and an infrequent one at that. I will happily withdraw if the community here wishes, and I have generally tried to limit my comments to those places where it seems people wish to engage with a Catholic theist's perspective. A genuine one, not the religious straw men that are common here.</p>
<p>I can understand that offering such a perspective may help inform or challenge the views of…</p>
<p>@Tom, when I first blundered here after the election of Pope Francis, I was clear that I am just a guest, and an infrequent one at that. I will happily withdraw if the community here wishes, and I have generally tried to limit my comments to those places where it seems people wish to engage with a Catholic theist's perspective. A genuine one, not the religious straw men that are common here.</p>
<p>I can understand that offering such a perspective may help inform or challenge the views of some folks, but it's just information and dialog. To imagine it to be "bullying" requires one to believe that exchange of knowledge and perspectives is a form of harassment or aggression. I don't believe that; I'd be surprised if any free-thinking rationalist would adhere to such a notion. </p>
<p>One of the memes present here is that theists all run away when confronted. I suspect it's true for some; for most I expect the tone of the dialog is so unfriendly and at times juvenile that they decide it isn't worth continuing to engage. I've stayed for a bit because I was asked to, and because it seemed that at least some people did not want thoughtful theists to run away. </p>
<p>So I'm here just as a passing guest to engage in dialog. I have no interest or desire in converting anyone, nor do I think it's very likely that you'll "deconvert" me. If you're interested in the perspective of a practicing Catholic, whether it's to be honestly informed or just to hone your debate skills, I'm happy to provide insight into what my Church, and to some extent Christendom more generally, actually teaches. If not, and you'd prefer to call me anything from Pinocchio to a child molester to someone who is just passively obedient, that's fine too.</p>
<p></p> Okay, Robert, you're happy wi…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-06-25:1982180:Comment:13423102013-06-25T09:20:10.010ZTom Sarbeckhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/TomSarbeck
<p>Okay, Robert, you're happy with Catholicism. Good.</p>
<p>Your badgering people here helps us develop debating abilities.</p>
<p>You're developing abilities too. Will you use your new abilities to bully people who are less able than you?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Okay, Robert, you're happy with Catholicism. Good.</p>
<p>Your badgering people here helps us develop debating abilities.</p>
<p>You're developing abilities too. Will you use your new abilities to bully people who are less able than you?</p>
<p></p> Sure I know what I'm saying. …tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-06-25:1982180:Comment:13423052013-06-25T05:08:27.194ZDr. Bobhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/ProfessorRobert
<p>Sure I know what I'm saying. Though I am deeply sorry if you learned the wrong lessons from your time in Catholic schools. </p>
<p>Look at so many of the Saints. They were rebels and iconoclasts. St. Francis would walk into church naked to preach sermons, just as a protest against the pomp of the bishops of his day. The followers of Ignatius of Loyola armed the South American Indians against the Portugese slave traders. Jesus himself thumbed his nose at religious authorities on…</p>
<p>Sure I know what I'm saying. Though I am deeply sorry if you learned the wrong lessons from your time in Catholic schools. </p>
<p>Look at so many of the Saints. They were rebels and iconoclasts. St. Francis would walk into church naked to preach sermons, just as a protest against the pomp of the bishops of his day. The followers of Ignatius of Loyola armed the South American Indians against the Portugese slave traders. Jesus himself thumbed his nose at religious authorities on dozens of occasions, ultimately leading a riot in the temple and telling the Vatican of his day that they were a brood of vipers. Time after time, century after century the people we revere as Holy were almost anything but passively obedient. </p>
<p>Yes, before God obedience is a virtue, a form of humility and honesty. That obedience however, is ACTIVE. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob tends to tell people to go take on enormous challenges, to lead slaves to freedom, to give all they have to the poor, to lay down their lives for their friends. Obedience to men, though? Not so much. For schoolkids, self-discipline? Sure. Passive obedience? No.</p> Robert, dogmas or ideas don't…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-06-22:1982180:Comment:13337932013-06-22T03:48:00.653ZTom Sarbeckhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/TomSarbeck
<p>Robert, dogmas or ideas don't need protecting? PREPOSTEROUS!</p>
<p>People kill to protect their ideas.</p>
<p>Hitler, to protect his Thousand Year Reich idea, ordered his military to kill millions.</p>
<p>Stalin, to protect his idea of communism, ordered the killing of more of the USSR's people than Hitler's military killed.</p>
<p>Your Catholicism has destroyed your ability to think. It has left you able only to protect -- poorly.</p>
<blockquote><p>Within my faith at least, passive…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Robert, dogmas or ideas don't need protecting? PREPOSTEROUS!</p>
<p>People kill to protect their ideas.</p>
<p>Hitler, to protect his Thousand Year Reich idea, ordered his military to kill millions.</p>
<p>Stalin, to protect his idea of communism, ordered the killing of more of the USSR's people than Hitler's military killed.</p>
<p>Your Catholicism has destroyed your ability to think. It has left you able only to protect -- poorly.</p>
<blockquote><p>Within my faith at least, passive obedience is not valued.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I did twelve years in Catholic schools! You don't know what you're saying!</p>
<p>Further, you don't care.</p> Dogmas are ideas. They don't…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-06-22:1982180:Comment:13336432013-06-22T01:49:39.217ZDr. Bobhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/ProfessorRobert
<p>Dogmas are ideas. They don't need protecting.</p>
<p>Within my faith at least, passive obedience is not valued. I can't speak for all religion everywhere, but at least for the religions of the Book it would be hard to imagine a notion of passive obedience taking serious hold. The Book is filled with stories of revered figures being remarkable disobedient, right up to Jesus of Nazareth and his apostles.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Dogmas are ideas. They don't need protecting.</p>
<p>Within my faith at least, passive obedience is not valued. I can't speak for all religion everywhere, but at least for the religions of the Book it would be hard to imagine a notion of passive obedience taking serious hold. The Book is filled with stories of revered figures being remarkable disobedient, right up to Jesus of Nazareth and his apostles.</p>
<p></p> Professor Robert:
So let's de…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-06-21:1982180:Comment:13335392013-06-21T22:49:27.261ZTom Sarbeckhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/TomSarbeck
<p>Professor Robert:</p>
<blockquote><p>So let's describe "passive obedience" as a cultural feature of certain ethnic or national cultures, not of religion.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Your earlier reply conveniently -- for you -- omits religion's need for passive obedience. A few hours ago, at a religious funeral service for a religious friend, the minister asked believers to say "Amen" 100 times each day.</p>
<p>You know what the word <em>Amen</em> means: So be it. Consent.</p>
<p>He wanted me to…</p>
<p>Professor Robert:</p>
<blockquote><p>So let's describe "passive obedience" as a cultural feature of certain ethnic or national cultures, not of religion.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Your earlier reply conveniently -- for you -- omits religion's need for passive obedience. A few hours ago, at a religious funeral service for a religious friend, the minister asked believers to say "Amen" 100 times each day.</p>
<p>You know what the word <em>Amen</em> means: So be it. Consent.</p>
<p>He wanted me to self-train in passive obedience!</p>
<p>Robert, your standards for integrity appear lower than the standards of atheists.</p>
<p>Your attempts at reason are motivated by a need to protect a dogma.</p>
<p></p> @Gallup, here is the point.
T…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-06-21:1982180:Comment:13336112013-06-21T16:10:59.345ZDr. Bobhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/ProfessorRobert
<p>@Gallup, here is the point.</p>
<p>The purges and persecutions in the Soviet Union were motivated by a number of things. Ethnic tensions, the desire by the state not to have any rival authority like the Orthodox Church, the need for a pretext to seize church property to finance government activities, economic pressures galore, etc. etc. They were also carried out in the name of an aggressive program of religious suppression in the name of atheism and the establishment of an atheist state. …</p>
<p>@Gallup, here is the point.</p>
<p>The purges and persecutions in the Soviet Union were motivated by a number of things. Ethnic tensions, the desire by the state not to have any rival authority like the Orthodox Church, the need for a pretext to seize church property to finance government activities, economic pressures galore, etc. etc. They were also carried out in the name of an aggressive program of religious suppression in the name of atheism and the establishment of an atheist state. Religious writers and dissenters were rounded up and sent to the gulag, religious folks denied jobs, schools had aggressive programs of atheist indoctrination, etc.</p>
<p>The Crusades were motivated by a number of things. In Spain, by the "invasion"/migration of ethnic Arabs displacing native Iberians, an order of magnitude larger than the current Mexican/U.S. immigration issue on a per-capita basis. Economic and population recovery in Europe with only first sons inheriting, the nascent development of larger nations, Turkish encroachment on Greece, potential economic gain from controlling eastern trade, etc. They were also carried out in the name of religion, and the establishment of nominally religious states, with clerics under the effective control of the state. </p>
<p>There aren't just single causes for historical events; historical events are created by the confluence of a number of factors. Attributing things to one cause, whether it's economics (as Marx did), or religion/lack of religion (as we are doing), is clearly and obviously erroneous.</p>
<p>I find it particularly ironic, though, that you use the "babies tossed in fires" bit. It's so eerily reminiscent of the justifications used by evil actors to encourage pogroms throughout the centuries. The Jews eat Christian babies, etc. Is blood libel the sort of argument that you really want to associate yourself with? </p> Yep. That's because you and…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-06-21:1982180:Comment:13334502013-06-21T16:08:27.900ZEmperor Miloshttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/MilosCakovan
<blockquote><p>Yep. That's because you and @Gallup don't understand Catholicism, and think it can be reduced to isolated website quotes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Quotes from the Vatican... The main seat of Catholicism. The place that makes the rules, Professor.</p>
<blockquote><p>Except as I describe to @Gallup above, that's not it. People don't form social groups based on just not believing something. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yep. You are right. We formed this social group because we are fucking…</p>
<blockquote><p>Yep. That's because you and @Gallup don't understand Catholicism, and think it can be reduced to isolated website quotes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Quotes from the Vatican... The main seat of Catholicism. The place that makes the rules, Professor.</p>
<blockquote><p>Except as I describe to @Gallup above, that's not it. People don't form social groups based on just not believing something. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yep. You are right. We formed this social group because we are fucking terrified with the prospect of what your loving religion can do to this world. Atheism is one thing we share, and we do have non-atheists here too. So this social group is open to all, unlike Christianity. We don't demand that you disbelieve, give us money, or kneel in order to be a member.</p>
<blockquote><p>Patron Saints are my department, I suppose, which is why I recognize the phenomenon when I see it. We don't pray to saints; we do admire, quote, revere, perhaps try to emulate them, hold them on a bit of a pedestal. Sound familiar?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here is a link to a bunch of <a href="http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?s=41" target="_blank">Catholic prayers to Saints</a>. Here is <a href="http://catholicism.about.com/od/thesaints/f/Pray_to_Saints.htm" target="_blank">another</a>.</p>
<p>So, Professor, here we have a list of prayers and Saints to pray to... Are these people on the fringe of Catholicism now?</p>
<blockquote><p>It's a phenomenon found in many social groups, not just religion. I'm just using the language which is most familiar to me.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>By your definition of Saint, I suppose that Michael Jordan is a saint too.. Same with pretty much any celebrity that ever lived. Yet I don't remember Michael Jordan ever being attributed with miracles, aside from those last second half court game winners. Nor does he have lists of prayers to his name... Again, Professor, you claim to want to educate us on Catholicism, but it sounds more like you are trying to educate us on your personal brand of Catholicism, not the one that Catholics seem to follow.</p>
<blockquote><p>Well, perhaps not as strongly as that, though in some ways at public universities we're expected to keep our beliefs in the closet, so to speak.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yeah, just like anybody else. That is called equality, Professor. As soon as Christians stop trying to force everybody to bend knee to their Lich Lord, the rest of us will stop telling you to shut up.</p>
<blockquote><p>I live in the northern part of the U.S., so we don't see that as much, but I've dealt with it some. I have no doubt that in some parts of the former confederacy it can be bad; certainly Catholics I know have been on the receiving end of some ugly discrimination in those areas, and many evangelical churches still refer to the pope as the AntiChrist or the Church as the Whore of Babylon. We're not that much above atheists in that community's list of horrible people.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I know about that stuff. My old college roommate's religion thinks that John-Paul 2 is going to rise from the dead as the antichrist. But that is hate from a few groups. Put yourself in our shoes, and go on campus wearing a scarlet A, or walk in a Pride Parade, and see that hate thrown at you from every direction, not just the evangelicals.</p>
<p>Even here, in this "social group", we get the same hate from time to time. It's not enough that they hate us everywhere else, they have to come into our house and kick our dog too.</p>
<p>Tell people for a week that you are atheist, and you will understand why we are angry, and why we get frustrated with theists.</p> You claim Catholicism is X, a…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-06-21:1982180:Comment:13336082013-06-21T15:44:21.021ZDr. Bobhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/ProfessorRobert
<blockquote><p>You claim Catholicism is X, and provide zero evidence to support your claim. Gallup's Mirror on the other hand, claims Catholicism is Y, and presents evidence from the Vatican's own website, and you still hold your beliefs to the contrary.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yep. That's because you and @Gallup don't understand Catholicism, and think it can be reduced to isolated website quotes. Do you think that physics can be reduced to isolated website quotes? Or isolated textbook quotes? …</p>
<blockquote><p>You claim Catholicism is X, and provide zero evidence to support your claim. Gallup's Mirror on the other hand, claims Catholicism is Y, and presents evidence from the Vatican's own website, and you still hold your beliefs to the contrary.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yep. That's because you and @Gallup don't understand Catholicism, and think it can be reduced to isolated website quotes. Do you think that physics can be reduced to isolated website quotes? Or isolated textbook quotes? Of course not. When you want to learn physics you go to classes taught by real physicists. Someone's website might be useful along the way, but it is not even close to sufficient. Same here. I'm describing what the Catholic Church really teaches, in more accessible language than translated Latin. And if you go back through these interminably repetitions threads you'll find I at times have responded with citations to conciliar documents and church fathers and whatnot.</p>
<p>From my perspective, the problem is that just a few folks here are unwilling to part with their prejudice.</p>
<p><strong>Atheism = no belief in god(s).</strong> That's it!</p>
<p>Except as I describe to @Gallup above, that's not it. People don't form social groups based on just not believing something. </p>
<blockquote><p>Point me to one person who prays to Hitchens, Professor. Last I checked, Patron Saints are your department.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Patron Saints are my department, I suppose, which is why I recognize the phenomenon when I see it. We don't pray to saints; we do admire, quote, revere, perhaps try to emulate them, hold them on a bit of a pedestal. Sound familiar?</p>
<p>It's a phenomenon found in many social groups, not just religion. I'm just using the language which is most familiar to me.</p>
<blockquote><p>At least you don't have to worry about atheists firing you from your job, or your landlord kicking you out of your house, or being hassled daily by the entire community you live in because of your opinion.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Well, perhaps not as strongly as that, though in some ways at public universities we're expected to keep our beliefs in the closet, so to speak.</p>
<p>On this, however, we are in full agreement. The harassment of non-believers is objectively sinful, absolutely wrong. I live in the northern part of the U.S., so we don't see that as much, but I've dealt with it some. I have no doubt that in some parts of the former confederacy it can be bad; certainly Catholics I know have been on the receiving end of some ugly discrimination in those areas, and many evangelical churches still refer to the pope as the AntiChrist or the Church as the Whore of Babylon. We're not that much above atheists in that community's list of horrible people.</p>
<p>I confess I will occasionally sit out on the campus green at lunch and engage with the loud preacher-types who come around. They, too, tend to hold tightly to their prejudices, I'm sad to say, but it can be mildly interesting. Mostly it just merits a "yawn", as you say.</p> @The Professor,
Here's the pr…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-06-21:1982180:Comment:13334462013-06-21T15:33:15.774ZEmperor Miloshttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/MilosCakovan
<p>@The Professor,</p>
<blockquote><p>Here's the problem I see with that, @Gallup. People do not actually choose to do anything based on lack of belief. I don't believe in snargs and grumpkins, so that means I don't give snargs and grumpkins a second thought. I don't join online communities to talk about disbelieving in snargs and grumpkins, I don't try to dissuade other people from believing in snargs if they want to, I don't attribute the problems of the world to…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>@The Professor,</p>
<blockquote><p>Here's the problem I see with that, @Gallup. People do not actually choose to do anything based on lack of belief. I don't believe in snargs and grumpkins, so that means I don't give snargs and grumpkins a second thought. I don't join online communities to talk about disbelieving in snargs and grumpkins, I don't try to dissuade other people from believing in snargs if they want to, I don't attribute the problems of the world to grumpkins.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The people who do believe in snargs or grumpkins don't consider you an inhuman, evil monster based on your disbelief.</p>
<p>Snargians or Grupkinsians don't control the government and limit rights of people who think differently.</p>
<p>When was the last war started between Snargians and Grupkinsians, Professor?</p>
<p>When have they demanded that their creation story be taught in place of proven science in schools?</p>
<p>How much taxes do they avoid paying?</p>
<p>Do Snargians or Grumpkinsians claim that condoms are evil?</p>
<p>Do their leaders live in golden palaces while the majority of their followers wallow in filth, and then they preach about humility and caring for the poor?</p>
<p>Do Snargian doctors refuse abortions to women who will die without one?</p>
<p>Do Grumpkinsian priests molest children and then have help from the loving, caring, good Grumpkinsian church to avoid the law?</p>
<p>Do Snargians knock on your door to preach the good word of Snarg?</p>
<p>When has a Grumpkinsian president said that Christians are not patriotic and shouldn't be considered citizens?</p>
<p>Which passage in the Snargian and Grumpkinsian holy books praise genocide, slavery, misogyny, genital mutilation, human sacrifice?</p>
<p>We can keep going...</p>
<blockquote><p>If truly atheism is only lack of belief in gods, then all of those things are nonsensical. There are atheists like that, I will grant. Perhaps they are the majority. </p>
<p>However, that does not describe the group here. The group here seems to derive group identity from atheism. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>No, Professor. The group here is here because this is the one safe place where many members here can speak their mind without fear of persecution or DEATH by the loving Christians and Muslims.</p>
<blockquote><p>That's not just non-belief, that's active identification. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The moment religion relinquishes its death grip on the throat of human rights and equality, atheists will stop caring about religion. Until that day, Professor, we need to be vocal.</p>
<blockquote><p>Some here use what Christians would call evangelical language, wanting to convince others that non-belief is right, wanting to see believers fade from the world, etc. etc. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Looking at countries like Sweden, Norway and the like, that's not a bad idea.</p>
<p>You are once again missing the point, Professor. Atheism is a lack of belief, nothing else. Anything else people attribute to it, or the behaviour they take away from it is THEIR OWN.</p>
<blockquote><p>At the point when atheism becomes the locus for a social group identity, it is no longer simply non-belief. It is an organizing principle for a social group, or a society. It is a motivator.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Once again wrong, Professor. Our shared worry with the behaviour of religious groups is the motivator.</p>
<blockquote><p>As an example, simple non-belief doesn't lead to adolescent name-calling of the sort you engage in regularly. That only happens when people feel a social identity needs to be asserted, and feel it strongly enough to engage in that sort of playground bullying behavior.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Wrong again, Professor. The name calling you endure here comes from our frustration with your empty, pointless words. You are unable to answer a question, you are unable to provide reasoning for anything you say.</p>
<p>You come here with the title "Professor", clearly meant to impress or even intimidate us intellectually, and you are here lecturing us on need for an assertive social identity?</p>
<p>The name calling you receive here comes as a reaction to someone who thinks they are of superior intellect, needing to flaunt their "Professor" status, and being unable to hold a reasonable discussion, instead resorting to misdirection, playing the victim, and bumper sticker philosophy.</p>
<p>We've heard it all, Professor, and so far, we are not impressed.</p>